'Love it or leave it'

Suppose I am the "head of the household", and as such I claim to have certain rules for living under my roof.

Say I reserve the authority (not "the right" as no such right could ever exist) to stop and search any family member at any time. Not just while they were under my roof, but anywhere they might be.

Suppose I make up rules regarding how fast they may walk in the house (even in their own room, and even if no one else is present), what they are allowed to buy with their own money, and how much of their money they must turn over to me- not for rent, which is charged separately, but just for the privilege of existing. Suppose I dictate what color sheets they are allowed to put on their bed, or what they can read while relaxing there. Suppose I make them pay a ransom on each thing they buy with their own money.

Suppose I tell them I own their body and dictate what they can and can't do with themselves. What they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest.

I will also demand they allow me to photograph them naked or grope their body in an intimate and invasive way before they leave the house, or perhaps even when they try to go from room to room in the house.

I, backed up by the other members of the house who see nothing wrong with this system, say "if you don't like it, move in with another family somewhere." If the unhappy person decides they don't like living in the house, under my rules, they can theoretically move out, but only with my permission and under my conditions. Even if they move out they will still be ordered to hand over a percentage of the money they will earn. Plus, I will demand they give me most of their property before they leave. If they don't want to abandon their property or other loved ones to the abusive "head of household" they are told "then shut up and stop complaining!"

Such a "head of household" would be an abusive, insane, monster who would be subject to self defensive actions by those he abuses.

He has been convicted of nothing yet, but is said to be a "Mexican national" and is facing "federal narcotics trafficking" charges. Neither of those things are wrong, and if he actually committed aggression or theft, why are those things not the crimes he is being charged with? Because the law is a sham.

Share this article

Comments

Kent McManigal is an anarchist libertarian who lives on the Texas/ New Mexico border. He is the writer of Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog, an occasional contributor to The Libertarian Enterprise, writes a monthly column in his local paper, has his writings published in a slightly less local paper, and is a former presidential candidate. Write to him at: dullhawk@hotmail.com.